Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7918 of 2019 Applicant :- Chanda @ Chandrapal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Shri Vijay Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sheetal Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant, Chanda @ Chandrapal with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 229 of 2017(Criminal Case No. 134 of 2017) under Sections 363, 376, 506 and 323 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Jawan, district Aligarh.
As per the allegations in the FIR, the victim was enticed away by the applicant with the help of his relatives while she was alone at her house. However, the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that while she was returning from school after taking result, the applicant persuaded her to go along with him and took her to Agra, where the applicant pressurized her to live as his wife and kept her in confinement and established physical relation with her. However, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she completely changed her statement as given under section 161 Cr.P.C. and stated that while she was returning from school after taking her result, the applicant met her on the way and caused her to drink sugarcane juice and after drinking it, she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she was at Agra, where the applicant kept her on the pretext of his wife for two months and established physical relation.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim left with the applicant on her own freewill and visited several public places and did not make any objection, which goes to suggest that she was a consenting party and agreeable to the physical relation. He further submits that the applicant in order to fulfill his promise for marriage, took her to the Court, but due to non- cooperation of the advocates, he could not complete his promise. Although, the date of birth of the victim is 18.7.2002, but the counsel for the applicant has emphasized that the applicant is in jail since 13.6.2017.
It is further contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the period of detention as well as submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically be cancelled.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Sumaira